Tastes

Rating: 8/23 This is a bottom shelf Total Wine store brand that carries a 3 year age statement (good) and was produced in Minnesota (bad). I have low expectations, but we'll see. N: Light and thin with a faint nectar sweetness with water, faint bananas, pears, and some sort of odd oily funk. Nothing here smells bad, but it overall just doesn't have enough going on, is too weak, and have any particularly good aroma. P: Oh, this tastes young. I'm getting a bit of bitter ethanol, but mostly this just lack flavor. It's watery and slightly bitter, in the way that whiskey gets when its ABV drops too much. There's something faintly industrial, but it isn't too obtrusive. It's sort of just a slight industrial note in the bitterness. There's a slight, watery sweetness, but not much and certainly not nearly enough. There's also some heat from muddled barrel spices that tend toward hot cinnamon. This is also a bit harsh. It has a mild burn, but then it just abrades my tongue. Spots of caramel come through when I get lucky, but that's rare. The flavor is also just really muddled. This palate is challenging, but not at all in a good way. There's really nothing to like here. It isn't the most challenging thing to drink out there, but it's bad. F: Drying, lingering harshness, light, bitter, bland, faint spices, maybe a faint hint of vanilla. It's not all that bad (at least it's better than the palate), but it's certainly not good. - Conclusion - This might be salvageable in something like a maple syrup old fashioned that injects a lot of sweetness and richness. This is bad though. It could be an 8 at most. A 6 might be too harsh given that it isn't actually painful, but a 9 seems generous. Side by side, Earl Settler (11/23) is so much better than this and so is Trader Joe's bourbon (11/23) (rumored to be from Barton's). I gave The Sexton a 9 and it has some really weird, unpleasant funkiness to it. This is actually not that much worse. The Sexton has more sweetness and character though, as well as less of that watery bitterness. This will be a 7 or 8. Ick. Coming back to this, I might be able to be convinced that it's a 9. Really, I'm thinking an 8 though. Ick, again.

Rating: 11/23 Today is National Scotch Day, so I had to pick a scotch to have. This one seems interesting enough to fit the occasion, so I'm cracking it open. N: On the lighter side, but with a nice oily fullness that has hints of tangerine and lemon. Not the most interesting nose, but it has some nice, typical single grain character. I do get some of that grainy dry tartness that makes me worry this might be harsh, but we'll see. P: Sweet vanillins mix with tangerine and lemon, as well as a dash of sort of malty light caramel. It burns, unfortunately, but unsurprisingly. There's also an overall youthfulness that is typical of single grains. That said, the flavors do integrate well (aside from that burn). They aren't that complex though. F: The sweetness lingers, along with some burn. The sweetness has a grainier vibe now, with the vanillins reduced and the caramel gone. The fruity tartness doesn't make it through. - Conclusion - I'm not a big fan of this, but it does seem like a well-executed single grain. It's just unfortunate that grain whisky is kind of bad. Side-by-side, Compass Box Hedonism (12/23) actually tastes quite hedonistic for once, with plenty of bourbon barrel richness coming through. I think that this burns more too. It's not looking good for this Port Dundas. Light vegetal notes from this in comparison. Signatory's Caledonian 29 (1987) (12/23) has a bunch more wood going on (and obviously more heat, seeing as it's cask strength). I'd put the two of them close together, but the win goes to the Caledonian. I think that the Caledonian is a low 12, so this is going to be a 10 or 11. I think I'll go with an 11 for this, but it's borderline. Eh, there's actually a lot less funk in this than in the others, which I appreciate. I previously thought that this was a 10 or 11, but now I'm thinking an 11 or 12. I'm going with that 11 for sure now. This is a solid single grain, but it's unfortunately another example of grain whisky being inferior to malt. Thank you @jdriip for sharing this! I'd been hunting for it for a while, so I'm glad to be able to move on to other hunts now :)

Rating: 20/23 I'd been curious to try Bardstown for a while, then I tried a couple that I thought were interesting and quite good, so I wanted to try more. I just finished a series of Château De Laubade tastings, so when I was looking through my samples for one to try, this spoke to me. N: Bold, leathery, kind of spicy, and slightly meaty. There are of course some rich fruits in the cherry and blackberry range. There's definitely some substantial barrel tannins coming out with the spice and leather. It's overall not the most complex and decadent nose, but it is quite a good one. Really, quite enjoyable. P: That tartness and bold woody bitterness that I expect of Armagnac tannins hit me straight up, but the flavor isn't overpowering. There's some bold leatheriness here as well that reminds me of Joseph Magnus, then that fades into barrel spices (ginger, cinnamon, clove) with some limestone adding a mineral lightness to the profile. Dried cherries come in at opportune moments throughout, as do notes of chocolate and vanilla. Really, this is a very decadent dram. There's just a touch of young meatiness here, but not too bad. I'm very impressed. This has great complexity with decadent flavor. It isn't the most subtle, but it honestly does succeed pretty well at subtlety. F: There's a delightful mustiness like some really delightful cabernets have. It's intertwined with slightly floral vanilla and makes for a lovely finish. - Conclusion - This isn't making my top 5, but it is an excellent dram. My main complaint is that I could have done with a somewhat fuller body with a more viscous palate. Side by side, Joseph Magnus (21/23) is bolder, more leathery, oilier, less sweet, more integrated, and less complex. Honestly, I think that oloroso finishing is really coming through for the Joseph Magnus. Overall, I think that the two are quite close in quality. This has a more youthful bite to it, but the old tannins from the Laubade casks really give this some great maturity. Between the two, I'm inclined to favor the Joseph Magnus, but I can really see going either way. They're both just such great drams. A fresh bottle of Wild Turkey Rare Breed (18/23) just can't compete with this. The quality difference is stark. The Wild Turkey is less complex with just as much burn and more funky flavor from the alcohol that comes across as a bit off (at least side by side). There's no way that this can be as low as a 19 and I'm kind of thinking that a 20 is a bit low. I've sometimes thought that the Joseph Magnus could be a 22, but I think that still leaves this solidly in the 21 range. Which is an excellent score! I'm thrilled to find that this is a 21 and excited to try more Bardstown! On my final sip of this tasting, I am more seriously considering a 20 again, but this is definitely on the high end of that if it lands there. Coming back to this, it's definitely at least a 19, but I'm not so sure about that 21. I think I'm dropping this to a 20, but I don't think it's as low as a 19. It's a 20 or 21. Coming back for the last few sips, I almost gave this a 21, but after the last one, I landed on a 20. Thank you @Milliardo for sharing this sample of such a delightful dram!

Rating: 16/23 I just tried Bardstown's Château De Laubade finish and it blew me away, so I'm excited to be trying this one! I'm usually pretty skeptical of red wine finishes, but that last one had a nice flavor that made me think of cabernet sauvignon and I'm hopeful to find more of it here since this was actually finished in cabernet sauvignon casks. N: Oh, this is interesting. It's restrained, but I get something like red currants and blueberries covered in frost. There is some funky, musty, tannic barrel that definitely seems like French oak. The bourbon isn't super bold, but I do get some restrained caramel, tangerine, vanilla, and spice - notes that kind of give me an impression somewhere in the vicinity of Buffalo Trace. A touch of youthful meat, but not too much. Some bitter vanilla as well. Overall, this is a kind of odd nose, but in a good way. It keeps me wanting to come back to it. Not the most balanced, but I like it. P: A touch oily with a moderate mouthfeel. The wine fruit (cherry and blackberry - though some tangerine too) comes out more than I'd like, as does some funky terroir. There are still some nice tannins and barrel spices (starring cinnamon), but the funk is kind of throwing them off too. I'm definitely getting some bitterness from the tannins, but it's kind of flat. F: Kind of sweet red fruit from the wine with bits of terroir funk and some bitter barrels. Licorice and vanilla as well. It's not great, but it's pretty enjoyable. - Conclusion - Wild Turkey Rare Breed (18/23) is fuller with more of a nice traditional bourbon flavor than this has, even though the Wild Turkey is kind of challengingly funky on its own. Coming back to this, I am getting some more mellow bourbon flavors from it, but there's this sort of tacked-on red wine character. I just am not really sure how well the two go together. This is kind of in the range of the Wild Turkey. It's more complex and less brash, but it's also more out of whack. Eh, I don't know: this might be growing on me. My palate might actually be a little bit toast after the bold armagnac finishes I tried before this. Russell's Reserve 10 (15-16/23) is a bit lighter than this, but it has a more typical profile, whereas this is pretty funky. I kind of prefer the direction that the Russell's is going, but this does fill in some gaps that it has. Although I do enjoy this, it's quite clear to me that the Bardstown Laubade is much better. This is further evidence that brandy finishes are good for bourbon, whereas red wine finishes don't do as well. Coming back to this, I'm inclined to place it below the Wild Turkey. It's more in the Russell's range, though I might lean slightly higher. This isn't my final sip, but if I had to choose right now, I'd go with a 16. Thanks, @Milliardo , for sharing this fun dram!

Rating: 12/23 N: This may be high ABV, but I do smell more alcohol than I'd expected. I get some herbal rye dryness and spiciness, unexpectedly. There are also hints of port. What is going on here? It's funky and not as full and rich and decadent as I'd expected. P: Oh, yeah, I'm getting those rye flavors. It's funky and weird. I get lots of dill. It's not that sweet and I'm not getting a big bourbon influence, though there is vanilla and a hint of caramel. I do gradually get some maltiness. It burns, but that is to be expected at this proof. There's some odd hint of jalapeño. Also, I get some bitter woodiness. This isn't that complex, or mature or decadent. I'm kind of surprised. I definitely expected more from a 7 year old american single malt. Honestly, I'm getting grain scotch vibes here. F: Dry, tart, a bit harsh, grain scotch, faint oil. This isn't decadent and it's definitely challenging. I do get a bit of grain and malt, but not a lot. Possibly some very faint vanilla. Very faint on the long finish, I get some tropical notes. - Conclusion - I'm pretty disappointed in this. I definitely don't get a lot of bourbon cask influence, but I really don't get much in the way of malt flavor either. This actually reminds me the most of Kings County products. This is challenging and tastes much younger than it is - and that isn't just because of the proof. There unfortunately isn't a ton to like here. I do enjoy a bit of the interesting flavors, but at this proof and age, this alcohol should be mellower and the overall profile should be richer and fuller. I'm very disappointed considering the price. Why produce and sell whiskey that is so old yet tastes so young? I think that the core spirit here is actually quite harsh. Even watering it down, it burns quite a bit. Still, I'd say that this beats The Sexton. The Sexton smells and tastes like gasoline in comparison. It's a big gap. Stranahan's Blue Peak (15/23) is fuller, sweeter, and more hedonistic than this. The Stranahan's is maltier and richer, but it's more muddled and less interesting. Still, it actually manages to taste more mature and it's definitely more approachable. Is this really a single malt? I mean, I believe it because it says it on the bottle, but it really doesn't taste like it. Is there really no rye in here? Really? Wow, Dad's Hat cask strength (19/23) is just obviously far better than this. It's richer, more decadent, and less harsh. That said, it's still quite bitter, though why should a malt be as bitter as a rye? That really just raises more questions about this. The Dad's Hat has a lot of herbal flavors that are interesting, decadent, and missing here. This is definitely less rich. Let's score this though. This is certainly at least a 10, but it's not a 15. I'm thinking that this is closer to a 10 than to a 15. A 10 is likely a tad harsh, but I'm not super confident in that statement. I'm thinking that it's an 11 or 12. I think I'm going to land on a 12. I could believe a 13, but this is seriously challenging. Eh, the possibility of a 13 seems higher and higher. I'm appreciating this more, but it really does require a scorched palate. Tough for sure.

Rating: 16/23 I don't think I've ever tried a sauternes-finished bourbon before. In fact, I may have only previously tried one sauternes-finished dram at all. E: This is surprisingly a bit darker than Boon County Oloroso Finish. I guess oloroso isn't a dark sherry, but I'm still surprised. N: Super sweet, but still bourbon. A bit of kind of rough youthful meatiness mixes in with vegetal and kind of herbal backing. Then a big citrus smell with sugar and caramel. It's like lemon and caramel, I guess. A bit of nutty richness, as is to be expected with this kind of finishing. Fairly strong minerality. Some dry barrel spices that have a bit of nuance to them. I want to say that there is a touch of orange too. Possibly a dash of anise. P: There's a bold oakiness with lots of tannins. It kind of tastes over-oaked, but it's not so far gone that it's a big problem. Moving past that, I find a spicy bite that lacks complexity and a slightly watery minerality. But then it develops peanuts and the strong flavors start to fade into each other and rich, decadent sultanas come out. Also, the tannins aren't totally bad. Although they don't deliver a pure leather flavor, they move past the over-steeped teabag realm and land somewhere between the two. I also do gradually start to detect some more spicy nuance, with ginger and cinnamon being the most evident, though some clove definitely coming in as well. F: The sultanas from the palate grow into the dominant flavor, making this a decadent finish. Bits of wood and spice and faint herbs surround them, but it's really all about the sultanas here. - Conclusion - This doesn't totally stick the landing, but the peanut and sultana flavors, as well as the well-integrated finish, really signal to me that sauternes is a totally viable finishing option for bourbon. The more I have this, the more I appreciate this. It's kind of out there and it has its problems, but it's quite enjoyable overall. I'm finding this to be competitive with Russell's Reserve 10 (15-16/23) or slightly better. I'm thinking that this is looking like a 16, but it could be a 17. An 18 would probably be pushing it. Considering the (present but not at all excessive) amount of teabag character to the tannins, I'm thinking that this is most likely a 16. Could be a 17 though. Coming back to this, I can't imagine it being under a 15, but a 17 is a little bit of a stretch. It's not at all impossible, but this will be a low 17 if it is one. Thank you, @Milliardo , for sharing this fascinating whiskey! It was a lot of fun to try and had some really nice decadence to it.

Rating: 10/23 N: Sweet with some fresh stone fruit, a squeeze of lemon, and some light nutty oiliness that adds a rich dimension to this. A bit of kind of a rye herbaceousness with a little bit of vegetal flavor. Some definite minerality as well, though it isn't terribly assertive. What's more the case is that this is kind of on the light side. P: Not the boldest and it has a lot of burn, but there's some nice sweetness with well-integrated stone fruit and a touch of richness that makes me think pecans, but not that oily. A little bit of syrup to the fruit, with maybe a touch of vanilla and a hint of anise. A small amount of woody tannins, but it does add a clear bitter and slightly astringent layer. It's probably so clear because it isn't very complex. The burn is unfortunately quite hot and kind of harsh. It's not a nice flavorful pepperiness, so much as it is just a straight burn. It's reasonable for this to burn at such a high proof, but it really should have more flavor filling it out. Adding a bit of water, some youthful wood vanilla and a substantial smokiness stand out. I didn't expect that. I'm really noticing more smokiness now. It's not grassy, but it isn't quite barbecue-y either. F: I get some nice toastiness and vanilla here. It still burns, but the burn is fading. It's fairly sweet now. Hints of minerality and stone fruit. - Conclusion - Unfortunately, as much as I like the core flavors here, I don't like the burn and weakness to this. The oloroso finish is really working here, but it needs more work to be really enjoyable. The heat isn't hitting me as much anymore, but I still find this to be rough and light. This is no Russell's Reserve 10 (15-16/23) in terms of richness or complexity or smoothness. Even a 12 would be a tough sell here. Unfortunately, I don't really have stuff down in this range to put side-by-side, but I'm thinking that this is at most an 11. An 8 seems like it might be a little bit low, but I could believe it. A 7 would be hard to believe since it's hot, but it isn't really harsh. I'm leaning toward a 9, but it could be a 10. Coming back to this, it still really burns, but the oloroso oily nuttiness is showing through nicely. This strikes me as more rich and mature than Trader Joe's Kentucky Straight Bourbon (11/23), but it's just so much more harsh. I think I'd take the Trader Joe's over this, but not by a lot. The Sexton (9/23) doesn't burn as much as this does, but it is so much more funky and weird. Ick. I think I prefer this. I'm thinking now that this is a 10 now. Thanks to @Milliardo for another interesting cask-finished dram!

Rating: 7/23 I wasn't all that impressed by Hotel Tango Bourbon Ready-To-Drink, but I'm a big fan of cognac and armagnac finishes on bourbon, so I'm hoping that this will be much better. N: This isn't what I expected. It's neither particularly sweet nor particularly bold. It's strangely vegetal and pepperminty with a touch of white pepper. There isn't a lot happening here. Maybe a whiff of alcohol. P: This is vegetal for sure. I'm thinking that this is quite youthful and the brandy barrels are here to cover for that. It's the vegetal flavor of young distillate. It doesn't burn or taste industrial, but it certainly does taste too young to be bottling. I also get some funkiness that reminds me of PX sherry, but I think that might just be the youthful distillate's squash flavor. There is a sweetness here though that brings in a fruitiness on the back of some woody tannins that don't end up too astringent. There's a bit of caramel mixed with orange going on, but also some funky sweetness that I'm not sure whether to attribute to the distillate or to the brandy (after all, it could be an American brandy). There's a fair amount going on here, but it's weird and flawed. This is an unfortunately challenging palate that needs age and refinement. F: The precise funky flavors fade out, leaving more of a tingling woodiness with hints of orange oil and some mild squash. Maybe a touch of caramel. Less challenging than the palate and not exactly boring, but still not that great. - Conclusion - This has a bit more flavor to it than Hotel Tango Bourbon Ready-To-Drink does, but I think that this just isn't as good. The BRTD doesn't have the same youthful flaws that this does, making it a better product overall. Earl Settle (10/23) is also clearly better than this, though it does have more alcohol bite to it. The Sexton (9/23) has more of an alcohol bite to it, but it's sweeter with nicer fruity flavors. Side-by-side with this, I'm slightly liking The Sexton for the first time. I might be able to justify a 9 for this, but I'm not confident. Black Eagle (8/23) is more lacking in character and age than this is, but it doesn't have that same vegetal funk to it. Both taste young, but in different ways. I think that they're similar in quality, so I'm going with an 8 for this. I've gone back and forth between this and Black Eagle, so I think that 8 is spot-on. Coming back to this, the funk is so weird that this might actually be a 7. I'm getting this kind of upsetting vegetal buckwheat flavor that reminds me of Corsair Grainiac tried on a tired palate. Still, the Black Eagle really does show a lot of alcohol. Maybe I need to just still with my original 8. I don't know. This is rough. It's an active struggle to drink. I think that the Black Eagle is slightly better, but is this bad enough to be lowered to a 7? Maybe, but I'm not confident enough to make that call, so it will get to stay at an 8. It's quite borderline though. Actually, on the final sip, I'm going to push this down to a 7. I can at least swallow the Black Eagle and forget about it, whereas this lingers. Thanks for the sample @Milliardo !

Rating: 11/23 Aside from the fact that this has been finished in red wine barrels, I know very little about it. Oh, and it's about 2.75 years old. N: Dry with an herbal tartness that makes me think of rye, before rolling into tannins and punches of red fruit. Some dry earthy barrel must comes out, along with an occasional hint of sweet sawdust. It doesn't smell super old, but it doesn't smell nearly as young as it is either. It's a bit funky and out there, but it still holds itself together while maintaining distinct scents. P: This doesn't taste super mature. It's not super young either since it mostly lacks the new make flavors, but there still is a faint hint of squash to it. There are more tannins than the nose led me to believe, but there is still some sweetness. It''s kind of like light caramel mixed with tart red fruit, like red currants or something. There is a definite spiciness that tends toward pepper, but lacks a lot of real flavor. Digging in deeper, I get some black licorice as well. This palate is unfortunately not that interesting or mature or hedonistic. It's not bad, but there isn't really much going for it. It's a bit thin and light, with a bit too much tannins. F: The spicy tannins linger, along with a hint of light caramel that has just very faint red fruit. Not a bad finish, but forgettable at least. - Conclusion - This isn't bad. Honestly, it's solid for its age. It just isn't good. This lacks the boldness of Russell's Reserve 10 (15-16/23) and doesn't have its sweetness or roundness either. I do like that bit of bold sweetness this has, which I presume is from the red wine casks. Earl Settler (10/23) Is sweeter and richer than this is, with more corn and vegetal notes. I kind of find myself wanting to give the higher grade to the Earl Settler. The two are honestly quite competitive. They might both be 11s. There is no way that this is higher than a 13, nor is is lower than a 9. Coming back to this a few days later, I'm liking it better than I did before. I'm getting some subtle red wine fruit. It's still on the light side, but it's pretty clean. Earl Settler has a weird vegetal tinge to it that this doesn't have, so this is clearly beating the Earl. This isn't a whole lot better though. So a 12, perhaps. A 13 still seems ambitious. Trader Joe's bourbon (11/23) is quite competitive with this. There are some nice flavors here, but there is also tannin and heat that I don't think really help to push this past the Trader Joe's. The two are similar in quality. Honestly, I think that the Trader Joe's might be a bit better. Earl Settler is worse though, so this is definitely a 10 or an 11. Maybe the nice notes from the wine finish are causing me to give out pity points, but I'm thinking that this is closer to the Trader Joe's than it is to the Earl Settler. I do like the nuances from the wine, which really do add a nice range of fruit, rather than overwhelming this like many red wine casks do. This is very borderline though. Thanks, @Milliardo , for sharing this. Despite the shortcomings, I found the subdued nature of the wine finish to be quite well executed.

Rating: 17/23 I haven't tried Hungarian oak before, but I've been wanting to for quite some time. I expect it to be a lot like French oak, which honestly isn't my favorite, but really isn't bad either. N: A bit young with some kind of undercooked meat to it. But restrained undercooked meat. A little sweetness or something somewhere, but that's about it. P: Mizunara?! I didn't see that coming. It has that sandalwood flavor and nice sweetness with restrained vanilla. This could be the result of a combination of oak flavors and not the Hungarian oak all on its own, but it's very interesting and quite tasty! Some nice coconut that isn't super oily and bold ,but definitely comes in. I do get youthfulness with light grain, ethanol, and that usual Irish whiskey oiliness. There are also some harsh spices, which isn't great. But there's also a little nectarine nectar, which is just delightful. I also get some surprising coffee flavor in here at points. F: That sandalwood sure lingers. Also, the coffee sticks around. And so do the burning spices and odd oily Irish whiskey flavor. - Conclusion - This is an odd one. It doesn't quite stick the landing, but it really does quite nicely with some very interesting flavors. It's a little immature, but I'd love to try an older, more refined version of this. I haven't been too impressed by Killowen so far, but this one really changes my mind. To compare that mizunara blast, I pulled out my bottle of The Shin 10 (16/23). The Shin is peated and a bit funkier, but it really highlights that sandalwood profile. There's more sulphur to The Shin though, making it less appealing. It also has a more bitter profile to the sandalwood. Honestly, it tastes cheap in comparison to this - there's just such a decadent purity here that it doesn't match (though that does also result in more alcohol flavor coming through). A couple more sips of The Shin and this is no longer a crushing defeat for it. Some more vegetal and herbal notes come out amid smoky nuance as the sulphur subsides. I'd still take this, but it's not such a clear victory. Nikka From the Barrel (/23) is richer and malter and more decadent than this is. The Nikka is at least a high 17 though and it might even be an 18 that I underrated. The gist though is that the Nikka is better than this is. It doesn't have that same unique blast to it, but it's just a better quality dram. How far below it is this though? Well, Highland Park 16 Wings of the Eagle (17/23) has some funky smoke and bourbon decadence and perhaps a little too much boldness. I'm finding this to be pretty competitive based on its decadence - though it definitely shows more alcohol and is less complex. McIvor 17 (16/23) has some nice decadence, but it isn't on the same level as this. I think I have to go with a 17 here, though I could be convinced of a 16. Really, I could go either way on this one, but I'm thinking it's a low 17. This is a really nice dram and a great demonstration of Hungarian oak and (hopefully) Killowen's skill and potential. Thanks to @PBMichiganWolverine for giving me this to try!